New D/D Converters from Denafrips

[The Computer Audiophile]

On 5/14/2020 at 9:06 AM, JoeWhip said:

Why not have a USB out?

Because it’s really dang hard to do right and requires a ton of support due to all the variables in the wild. Ask @vortecjr. 

 

 

 

On 5/14/2020 at 3:51 PM, ducatirider said:

being all digital do you think there's any sound difference between these and a audiobyte hydra z for example.  i'm looking for a usb to aes converter for a bricasti m1 se.

I'm interested to know whether syncronizing with a master clock makes any difference as well.

The Alpha USB is still the top DDC in my opinion, but it has to be put into the right system due to its limitations. For just USB to AES its the way to go. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, ggking7 said:

All 3 recommendations for the Berkeley here have specifically mentioned AES.  Is its SPDIF as highly recommended?

Yes. It’s on BNC and that’s a good thing. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

27 minutes ago, 57gold said:

Why isn't the stuff in the D to D converter engineered into a DAC? 

 

Using Berkeley as an example, seems to me that a $5K+ DAC should handle in incoming signal without needing conversion with a $2K box and additional cables.  Why does the clocking mechanism in the DAC not do the job the an external reclocker does?  Do the designers of DACs "forget" as step and need a fix for their products?  

 

Understood the utility of a D to D converter when I hooked a computer to a Wadia 861, it had no USB in and the Mac had no SPDIF out.  Wavelength and then an Audiophilleo2 did that job nicely.

 

Great question. 
 

Berkeley’s decision is all about isolating noise. They believe there’s no better way to do it than in a separate box. 
 

The inside isolation techniques in the Alpha USB are pretty cool and clever. 
 

It’s just a philosophy that Berkeley and some other manufacturers believe in. i supposed they could build a box within the DAC but then you’d be purchasing that box again if you upgraded because it’s built in. 
 

Fortunately there are a million options on the market. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 hours ago, 57gold said:

Getting back to my observation.  The Terminator DAC is $4,300 and if it needs another $2k box to "fix" its USB input, it's mis-engineered/broken from the outset.  

 

Have learned a bunch of great and useful stuff from this community, like  how to get a MAC to play music on a great vintage CD player with SPDIF input.  Posted the first observation that a studio equipment company was launching a home audio DAC, the Mytek DSD192, which I enjoyed for years. Also learned about and employed software players like PM, A+ and HQP to great and positive effect, which I leaned about here and am grateful.  And as Barrows and Jussi point out, a dedicated music server with no "distractions" and enough computational power is an optimal path to significantly better music.  Perhaps this is my next music listening mission, to the extent somebody comes up with something that can quietly handle HQP at a high level without costing as much as an SUV.

 

All that said, the "gizmo centric", D to D boxes, re-clockers, USB filter/cleaners, cable paranoia, Pis (though I still do not know what they do even after reading a two part review)...BS that has taken over CA/AS is pretty silly for a serious music lover.  It seems to be the stuff of the "audiophile" guy in my office who spent huge $s on his system (Spectral, MIT...) and stumbled when asked, "what's you new favorite album?" He couldn't talk about the musical performances, the song writing, why it moved him, only the recording quality of some audiophile samplers of third rate music.  He said, "he liked to listen to the equipment."

 

Different strokes.  

 

A few things come to mind. 
 

1. What does price have to do with your determination that a DAC is broken if the manufacturer offers something better that improves performance? In other words, what if the DAC was $2,300 and a $2,000 D to D converter came out that improved its performance? The cost would be equal to the Terminator’s $4,300. 
 

2. Your comments give me a vibe that you think others who enjoy different parts of this hobby are somehow less than those who place music above everything. Perhaps you don’t mean it this way, but the story about the guy in your office confuses me. I’m not sure why it’s important. I’m also unsure why it’s important to know he spent “huge $$ on his system.”
 

3. Suggesting BS has taken over the site is a bit over the top. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

 

You are right, the wording was a little strong, but I do think we sometimes forget the objective (musical enjoyment) and focus obsessively on the gear. Went down that path myself for some time - some personalities may be pre-disposed to this pitfall 😁. CA/AS in itself has nothing to do with this!

Hi Hopkins, no worries, we all have our own winding path of a journey.  For some people the objective is gear or gear and music or just music. Whatever the objective, it’s ok with me. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Zauurx said:

No one has dared to make a comparison or measurement of the Doukaudio XMOS XU208 at $2 (with 5v PSU).

What do you mean by “No one has dared…?”